I will spare your time, there's no such a research. I've done my research and I'm just exposing your unsubstantiated broad claims about scientific basis of the lockdown measures introduced by the government figures of that locality, as well as your bias and hypocrisy. If your standard is scientific, you'll have no problem condemning the authors of the initiatives that ruin individuals' lives in the name of "safety proven by science".
My bias and hypocrisy - if that was your goal you have failed. All you have shown is that you have an ax to grind. I haven't talked about lockdown measures at all, only in response to you bringing them up. And at that I haven't even said anything. Like I said before, you have an ax to grind and aren't reading what I am writing.
I will wade in here. Lock down measure do restrict the spread of covid - that I won't refute - and that is scientific in nature and if you are of scientific worth you can't deny that. It's merely physics - if people don't see each other there is no ability to transmit the illness. The debate that you are referring to is whether the severity of the lockdown measures are worth the cost. Thats a political calculation. I haven't waded into that in any of my comments and don't intend now.
> Thats a political calculation. I haven't waded into that in any of my comments and don't intend now.
you literally began this thread by posting under the comment that questions the degree of "responsibility for the costs of the measures they [authorities] take", and you proceeded with defending authorities' actions and stating that they have their skin in the game and that they follow the science. Your comment was about politicians making political decisions and enacting certain rulings regarding the lockdown.
> Lock down measure do restrict the spread of covid - that I won't refute - and that is scientific in nature and if you are of scientific worth you can't deny that.
What lockdown measures are you talking about? Generic lockdown measures or particular measures like enforcing "face coverings"?
> It's merely physics - if people don't see each other there is no ability to transmit the illness.
If people don't see each other, there's still a physical world they interact with. They can still pass stuff around and to each other, like food and clothing, right? Or do you live in a vacuum world of abstractions where no one sees nobody and lies still like a rock?
Are you trying to refute physics of breathing? Most of the virus spreads by air. The world of physics goods can be accomplished without breathing on other people hence the physical distancing. What world are you living in?
Yes the restrictions work at reducing spread. Literally all of them do reduce the spread of the virus. The question is the efficacy vs the cost not whether they reduce the spread of the virus.
